Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] New way to misrepresent Goulder

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    John, ... Best Wishes, Ken kaolson@mindspring.com ... From: John C. Poirier To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:56 AM Subject:
    Message 1 of 4 , May 22, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      John,

      Turner may have been confused by the fact that Goulder referred to his own theory as a Two-Gospel hypothesis, though Goulder’s point was that the label was inadequate as a description for a synoptic source theory. Goulder said:

      >>The hypothesis, advocated here by William Farmer, is sometimes

      referred to by its defenders as the _Two-Gospel Hypothesis_. This practice is confusing, and should be discontinued. The name is intended to stand in contrast with the _Two-Source (=Standard) hypothesis_, and to emphasize that Mark’s sources were our two Gospels, Matthew and Luke. But then my own theory, which is well-known o the Griesbachians, is also a Two-Gospel hypothesis, with Mark and Matthew the sources for Luke. So there are at least two Two-Gospel hypotheses. Griesbach has been known as the originator of the theory for two centuries, and his honourable name should be maintained<< [Michael D. Goulder, "Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew," in Minor Agreements: Symposium Goettingen 1991 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1991) 143 n. 1.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:56 AM
      Subject: [Synoptic-L] New way to misrepresent Goulder

      I recently came across another mislabeling of Goulder, although it is at least accompanied by a correct description of Goulder's views.  Max Turner mistakenly refers to Goulder's scheme as the "Two Gospel Hypothesis" (a label invented by the neo-Griesbachians for their own position), yet goes on to show that he really has read Goulder.  This is what Turner writes in *Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts* (JPTSup 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 140 n. 4:
      This conclusion may yet be overthrown by M.D. Goulder's vigorous attempt to demonstrate the Two Gospel Hypothesis (that Mark and Matthew were Luke's only sources of Gospel Tradition, with the LXX as an important additional resource). . . .


      John C. Poirier
      Middletown, Ohio
       

    • Mark Goodacre
      Thanks for this, Ken. An interesting footnote to this: when Goulder criticised the coining of the term Two Gospel Hypothesis , he added that my own theory,
      Message 2 of 4 , May 22, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for this, Ken. An interesting footnote to this: when Goulder
        criticised the coining of the term "Two Gospel Hypothesis", he added
        that 'my own theory, which is well-known to the Griesbachians, is
        also a Two-Gospel hypothesis, with Mark and Matthew the sources for
        Luke. So there are at least two Two-Gospel hypotheses. Griesbach
        has been known as the originator of the theory for two centuries, and
        his honourable name should be maintained.' ('Luke's Knowledge of
        Matthew' in George Strecker, ed., Minor Agreements. Symposium
        Göttingen 1991 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), pp. 143-60
        (p. 143, n. 1).). I think my own feeling, the more I reflect on
        this, is that one of the best ways of avoiding polemic is to stick
        with the names that the defenders of the hypothesis themselves
        prefer, so I use Two-Source, Farrer, Two-Gospel and so on, after what
        the defenders of each prefer.

        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
        Birmingham B15 2TT UK

        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
        http://NTGateway.com


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • John C. Poirier
        Thanks for this insight, Ken. I have always felt that the label Two-Gospel Hypothesis was confusing, although for a different reason: it sounds too much
        Message 3 of 4 , May 22, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for this insight, Ken.  I have always felt that the label "Two-Gospel Hypothesis" was confusing, although for a different reason: it sounds too much like "Two-Source Hypothesis" (but I understand that that's the point of the label).

          John C. Poirier
          Middletown, Ohio
           

          Ken Olson wrote:

          John,

          Turner may have been confused by the fact that Goulder referred to his own theory as a Two-Gospel hypothesis, though Goulder’s point was that the label was inadequate as a description for a synoptic source theory. Goulder said:

          >>The hypothesis, advocated here by William Farmer, is sometimes referred to by its defenders as the _Two-Gospel Hypothesis_. This practice is confusing, and should be discontinued. The name is intended to stand in contrast with the _Two-Source (=Standard) hypothesis_, and to emphasize that Mark’s sources were our two Gospels, Matthew and Luke. But then my own theory, which is well-known o the Griesbachians, is also a Two-Gospel hypothesis, with Mark and Matthew the sources for Luke. So there are at least two Two-Gospel hypotheses. Griesbach has been known as the originator of the theory for two centuries, and his honourable name should be maintained<< [Michael D. Goulder, "Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew," in Minor Agreements: Symposium Goettingen 1991 (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1991) 143 n. 1.

          Best Wishes,

          Ken

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.